‘Whole of government’ is old wine in a new bottle

The ‘whole of government’ approach has become a familiar mantra among Canadian military officers and government bureaucrats when they describe the unique way this country embarks on overseas missions. The idea is straight forward: government departments and agencies, aligned with the military, working together as a team for the desired outcome.

The former Camp Nathan Smith, once the base for Canada’s Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, was the hub of Canada’s whole of government effort in Afghanistan. Although still being used by Afghan security forces, it is largely empty and many of the buildings and facilities are rundown.

The ‘whole of government’ approach has become a familiar mantra among Canadian military officers and government bureaucrats when they describe the unique way this country embarks on overseas missions.

The idea is straight forward: government departments and agencies, aligned with the military, working together as a team for the desired outcome.

The latest use of the concept was last year when aid specialists, diplomats and Canadian Forces personnel responded to a natural disaster in the Philippines.

Although it is expected to continue to be a template for future missions, it was in Afghanistan where the ‘whole of government’ structure was field-tested. Diplomats, RCMP officers, Corrections Canada staff, development specialists and the military were brought together in various venues, most noticeably in Kandahar’s Provincial Reconstruction Team, or PRT, to deliver aid to the Afghans.

Despite the ongoing self-congratulatory writings of military and government officials about the concept, Canada’s ‘whole of government’ approach is hardly unique.

The U.S. conducted one of the largest such programs during the Vietnam War. Called Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support, or CORDS, that concept brought thousands of American government experts to Southeast Asia to work hand-in-glove with the U.S. military to support the Vietnamese government and its people.

The effort consumed vast amounts of money. In 1967 alone, the U.S. development agency earmarked a quarter of its entire budget — or $500 million — for aid to Vietnam, according to Funding the Enemy, a book by Douglas Wissing. That book examines the delivery of aid in Afghanistan and draws parallels between that and earlier efforts in Vietnam.

The U.S. program, like Canada’s ‘whole of government’ effort, ran into familiar problems: corrupt government officials, a dysfunctional bureaucracy, and projects that consumed millions of dollars but sometimes produced dubious results.

The Russians came next with a ‘whole of government’ approach in Afghanistan. Russian government departments also worked closely with the military to deliver aid and win Afghan hearts and minds.

The Russians also sent military and government advisers to teach Afghans how to run a government — specialists in banking, transportation, foreign affairs and agriculture were embedded in Afghanistan’s bureaucracy. It was a concept later replicated in the Canadian military’s Strategic Advisory Team in Kabul.

After the Russians, the next time a ‘whole of government’ concept was tried in Afghanistan was in 2002.

The Americans developed what would become the PRT concept, the first attempt to integrate multi-agency civilian staffers with the military since Vietnam, according to Wissing’s book, Funding The Enemy.

U.S. aid officials, along with the military, started in 2002 on smaller projects, such as building schools. A U.S. PRT was set up in Kandahar in 2003 and the concept later spread to other NATO allies working in various regions of Afghanistan.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.